The United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia
v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) has recognized
that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
does not confer an unlimited right and that states may prohibit
the carrying of firearms in sensitive places. The Supreme Court
stated in the Heller decision: "Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to
cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings . . ."

The Supreme Court also noted in a footnote referencing this statement in the Heller decision that: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

This recognition was reiterated by the U. S.
Supreme Court in McDonald v. the City of Chicago, 561 U.S.
3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), which incorporated the Second
Amendment against state action. The Supreme Court again stated:
"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt
on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on
the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,"
"laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings . . . We repeat those
assurances here."

Further, the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d. 933 (7th Cir., 2012) cited the "sensitive place" statement of the Supreme Court in both the Heller and McDonald decisions and concluded: "That a legislature can forbid the carrying of firearms in schools and government buildings means that any right to possess a gun for self-defense outside the home is not absolute, and it is not absolute by the Supreme Court's own terms." Therefore, the General Assembly finds that the place or location set forth in subsection (a) of this Section is a sensitive place and the prohibition on the carrying of firearms will promote public safety in this sensitive place.".

Maybe they think it makes their proposed laws chock full of constitutional goodness or something.